Again, the applicant did not request that M. give evidence during the hearing. 18.

This plea was rejected as manifestly ill-founded during the oral hearing on 7   February 2006.

During his questioning by the investigating judge the applicant denied that he was a member of the Dev-Yol and that he had been involved in its activities.

On the basis of documents provided by the prison authorities, the court found that, during the remaining period, for fifty-one days the applicant had had less than 3   m 2 of personal space.

    The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them.

In particular:   (a)     Did the applicant benefit from effective legal assistance during the appeal proceedings which ended on 5 May 2011?

According to the applicants, they were subjected to gratuitous and indiscriminate violence during the evacuation. A.

During their interrogation the applicants both confessed that they had been involved in the PKK since 1988 and that they had supplied food and money to PKK militants.

    In the present case, the applicant’s detention during the second trial amounted to two years and six months.

During the questioning he was assisted by a lawyer. A search was carried out at his home and a small quantity of marijuana was found.

Judge M. noted that the lawyers could access the case-file during office hours and, therefore, had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the documents contained therein.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

    The national courts allowed the pre-trial statements to be read out and admitted these statements as evidence without examination of the witnesses during trials.

According to the applicant, he was severely ill-treated by the police during three days.

  38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, as regards detention in a cage or a glass cabin during court hearings; Dirdizov v.

The same was true for the applicant himself who during the search remained lying on the floor in the living room as he was unable to stand up owing to his injuries.

    The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them.

According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held there during his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between four and five.

A forensic examination disclosed the presence of drugs on the scoop which had been seized during the search on 7 September 2005. On 14 September 2005 a court held a detention hearing.